Hydrocarbon bearing shaly formations can be detected using cation exchange capacity (CEC) shaly sand models. Most CEC shaly sand models still depend on the laboratory measurement of CEC value. In addition, these models use one value of formation resistivity factor, which is a function of the rocks's cementation exponent. Using one formation resistivity factor in shaly sand reservoir can result in overestimation of the water saturation which in turn results in overlooking formations with hydrocarbon potential. This paper introduces a new CEC shaly sand model, lpekBassiouni (I-B) model that improve the definition of the formation resistivity factor used in shaly sand formations. This model can also calculate the CEC value directly from the well log data.Ipek-Bassiouni (I-B) Shaly Sand Model considers that electric current follows two type of path in shaly sand. One path represents current flow in free water and another path in bound water. The differentiation between these two paths is accomplished by using two different formation resistivity factors in free water and in bound water. The two formation resistivity factors are expressed using two cementation exponents for free water and bound water as well.The validity of the model was checked using the cation exchange capacity measured from core samples and drill cuttings. Calculated CEC values display a good agreement with the measured CEC values. The estimated water saturations from the model indicate a better hydrocarbon potential in the zone of interest.

Hydrocarbon bearing shaly formations can be detected using cation exchange capacity (CEC) shaly sand models. Most CEC shaly sand models still depend on a laboratory measurement of the CEC value. In addition, these models use one value of formation resistivity factor which is a function of the rocks's cementation exponent. Using one formation resistivity factor in shaly sand reservoirs can result in overestimation of the water saturation, which in turn results in overlooking formations with hydrocarbon potential. This paper introduces a new CEC shaly sand model, Ipek-Bassiouni (I-B), that improves the definition of the formation resistivity factor used in shaly sand formations. This model can also calculate the CEC value directly from the well log data. The Ipek-Bassiouni (I-B) Shaly Sand Model considers that an electric current follows two types of paths in shaly sand. One path represents current flow in free water, and another path represents current flow in bound water. The differentiation between these two paths is accomplished by using two different formation resistivity factors in free water and bound water. The two formation resistivity factors are expressed using two cementation exponents for free water and for bound water. The validity of the model was checked using the cation exchange capacity measured from core samples and drill cuttings. Calculated CEC values display a good agreement with the measured CEC values. The estimated water saturations from the model indicate better hydrocarbon detection in the zone of interest. Introduction Water saturation of hydrocarbon bearing shaly formations can be determined using available CEC shaly sand models. Current CEC models are based on cation exchange capacity and the ionic double layer concept. However, the use of these models is impractical because most of the time CEC data is not usually available to the log analyst, hence; a laboratory measurement of CEC is required. Different laboratory techniques to measure this parameter are found to yield different CEC values for the same core sample. Previous researchers at Louisiana State University (LSU)(1–7) have developed a shaly sand interpretation technique, referred herein as the LSU model, based on log data such as resistivity, spontaneous potential, neutron and density logs. This model is based on the Waxman and Smits(8) concept of supplementing water conductivity with clay counter ions conductivity. It also utilizes the dual water theory(9), which relates each conductivity term to a particular type of water, free and bound, each occupying a specific volume of the total pore space. The main assumption of the LSU model is that the counter ion conductivity is represented by a hypothetical sodium chlorite solution. The LSU model is a practical approach that represents the conductivity behaviour of shaly sand. However, same as all previous models, the LSU model also assumes that the electric current follows the same path in both free and bound water areas. This leads to the use of the same formation resistivity factor to evaluate the shaly formations. This assumption can cause hydrocarbon bearing shaly formations to be overlooked due to overestimation of water saturation in the zone of interest.

The effect of metal doping on the hydrogen physisorption energy of a single walled carbon nanotube (SWCNT) is investigated. Unlike many previous studies that treated metal doping as an ionic or charged element, in this study, lithium and magnesium are doped to an SWCNT as a neutral charged by substituting boron on the SWCNT (Boron substituted SWCNT). Using ab initio electronic structure calculations, the interaction potential energies between hydrogen molecules and adsorbent materials were obtained. The potential energies were then represented in an equation of potential parameters as a function of SWCNT diameters in order to obtain the most precise potential interaction model. Molecular dynamics simulations were performed on a canonical ensemble to analyze hydrogen gas adsorption on the inner and outer surfaces of the SWCNT. The isosteric heat of the physical hydrogen adsorption on the SWCNT was estimated to be 1.6 kcal/mole, decreasing to 0.2 kcal/mole in a saturated surface condition. The hydrogen physisorption energy on SWCNT can be improved by doping lithium and magnesium on Boron substituted SWCNT. Lithium-Boron substituted SWCNT system had a higher energy physisorption that was 3.576 kcal/mole compared with SWCNT 1.057-1.142 kcal/mole. Magnesium-Boron substituted SWCNT system had the highest physisorption energy that was 7.396 kcal/mole. However, since Magnesium-Boron substituted SWCNT system had a heavier adsorbent mass, its physisorption capacity at ambient temperature and a pressure of 120 atm only increased from 1.77 wt% for the undoped SWCNT to 2.812 wt%, while Lithium-Boron substituted SWCNT system reached 4.086 wt%.